1) The battleship needs half of the Main Battery superfiring, much of the Light AA Battery also need to be raised.
2) Seakeeping on the battleship is poor, might want to try and fix that.
3) Personally I would give the battleship some miscellaneous weight

You managed to get a TDS on the light cruiser but kept full belt protection, that isn't easy!

1) The battleship needs half of the Main Battery superfiring, much of the Light AA Battery also need to be raised.
2) Seakeeping on the battleship is poor, might want to try and fix that.
3) Personally I would give the battleship some miscellaneous weight

You managed to get a TDS on the light cruiser but kept full belt protection, that isn't easy!

I agree with the points brought up by the others. I would add a few more secondary turrets on the Battlecruiser. Two twins on each side isn't much. I would probably increase speed and armor a bit with the hullstrength left after raising two main gun turrets and trying to keep seakeeping above 1.

I think I might have mentioned it quite a while ago here, but IIRC in my book on the Scharnhorst class it was mentioned that the TBH had to be angled in order to be effective due to the narrow beam. Regardless of what SS says, I don't think that in reality the TBH would work on the 21m beam of that cruiser so it would be better to discard it. Looking around a bit, I mentioned it here and quoted the bit from the book...

It is interesting that you used SS2 for the first two and then switched to SS3 with the carrier. Looking at the placement of the miscellaneous weights that tells me you probably did that because of stability issues in SS2 with all that weight. One problem with it is that none of the guns have a shell weight. Another thing I am seeing is that the Cross-sectional hull strength is higher than the Longitudinal. With almost all of my sims, it is the other way around or they are roughly equal to each other. You could raise the freeboard somewhat to gain some more hull strength which you could use on armor or speed or fuel or miscellaneous weights...

I agree with the points brought up by the others. I would add a few more secondary turrets on the Battlecruiser. Two twins on each side isn't much. I would probably increase speed and armor a bit with the hullstrength left after raising two main gun turrets and trying to keep seakeeping above 1.

Thanks for the help.

Quoted

I think I might have mentioned it quite a while ago here, but IIRC in my book on the Scharnhorst class it was mentioned that the TBH had to be angled in order to be effective due to the narrow beam. Regardless of what SS says, I don't think that in reality the TBH would work on the 21m beam of that cruiser so it would be better to discard it. Looking around a bit, I mentioned it here and quoted the bit from the book...

Quoted

It is interesting that you used SS2 for the first two and then switched to SS3 with the carrier.

Did it because the SS3 gave more options and felt more sure after using SS2 for a bit.

Quoted

Looking at the placement of the miscellaneous weights that tells me you probably did that because of stability issues in SS2 with all that weight. One problem with it is that none of the guns have a shell weight.

... *facepalm*

How I didn't noticed that I will never know, thanks for the heads-up.

Quoted

Another thing I am seeing is that the Cross-sectional hull strength is higher than the Longitudinal. With almost all of my sims, it is the other way around or they are roughly equal to each other. You could raise the freeboard somewhat to gain some more hull strength which you could use on armor or speed or fuel or miscellaneous weights...

Please enter the letters that are shown in the picture below (without spaces, and upper or lower case can be used). If you cannot identify the captcha even after reloading it please contact the administrator of this site.